eq2fandomcom-20200225-history
Talk:Admins/Archive 1
Factions Question: Should all the factions include the "The" as it shows in-game, or are we purposely leaving that off for sake of sortability? --Lordebon 19:39, 7 February 2007 (CET) :Right now our listed naming conventions say that we leave off the preceeding words (a, an, the) for factions.--Kodia 21:48, 7 February 2007 (CET) ::K, thats what I thought. Thanks... I'll fix the one I switched over (before I thought about how they're almost all "The ___"). --Lordebon 01:06, 8 February 2007 (CET) drops when filling in drops for mobs, should we list EVERY adept1/master and advanced recipe book? afiak, the recipes are random across the board, determined only by level of the mob. dont know if a1/m's are the same, or are tied somehow to mobtype (doubtful) --Uberfuzzy 08:28, 21 March 2007 (CET) :For the most part, we have no stated policy on this. My personal opinion is that if we listed *every* drop, we'd have to list all the trash crap too. I think we need to list the set piece armor, the unique and semi-rare armor, and then list things like "various Master 1 spells" or "various Adept 1" spells. And that's only assuming we want to list the "various" stuff at all. I'd venture to say that 99% of the mobs listed in our database only list the set piece, unique, and rare armor at present. I'm ok with keeping it that way.--Kodia 12:49, 21 March 2007 (CET) outside linking whats the policy on linking to outside sites? i've got alot of very good sources of information sitting in my bookmarks. i'd like to add links to them to the pages here, but not sure whats the norm for that. many of them are full featured things that wouldnt be easy to incorporate and credit here. ie for frostfell or for crafted cloaks. i'l send an email to Niami tomorrow and see what if any things she has to say. as long we dont wholesale gank their content, is there anything anyone can say against a link? if anything we're driving traffic to them oh, its not just traders corners, thers other sites, i just grabbed those 2 for examples for full pages. --fuzzy 10:37, 17 April 2007 (CEST) :As a general rule, linking is just fine. But as with any other page in the system, make it fit, make it relevant, and don't make it ugly. Links to outside sources typically occur at the end of an articles main information or at the end of a section within an article. If you can't think of a good place to put a link without making it stick out like a sore thumb, then putting it on the talk/discussion page for that article is *always* an excellent idea. Links don't require their own heading (except on talk pages) because typically you don't need an entire heading to call out a link. I'm confident Naimi would be overjoyed to see us link to her site in various places. But we can also write some of the articles ourselves too. I think that's part of the reason we have our new tag, isn't it? --Kodia 14:43, 17 April 2007 (CEST) ::ok, thats pretty much the answer i expected. thanks --fuzzy 18:33, 17 April 2007 (CEST) crafted by... when uploading examine pics of crafted things, should we obscure the crafter? --fuzzy 23:03, 20 April 2007 (CEST) :Why? --Florence Sopher of Lucan D'Lere (talk/ /templates) 00:05, 21 April 2007 (CEST) ::i dunno, guess its just something ingrained in my head from the ffxi days. in that game, not every item got stamped with the crafter, it took extra effort/resources to do so at crafting, so it was a bit like advertising your skills. on the ffxi wiki it was discouraged to put up pics of signed items. --fuzzy 00:12, 21 April 2007 (CEST) :::I think they should be kept as long as people aren't replacing images already on the site with images that they crafted that had their names on them. Also, as long as it doesn't become like Allakhazam, where people Photoshop their name onto the image. --Sage Locano Aredium of Antonia Bayle (talk/ /images) 17:20, 21 April 2007 (CEST) ::::funny you should mention that site too... i got in on the ground floor of when they started adding pictures of stuff, i'm all over that site--fuzzy 17:35, 21 April 2007 (CEST) :::::Really I don't mind small credits with people's names, but some of them were really out of control. BTW, what server were you on in FFXI? --Sage Locano Aredium of Antonia Bayle (talk/ /images) 18:44, 21 April 2007 (CEST) ::::::Midgardsormr :::::::Hmm. I played on Valefor... I thought your named seemed familiar from when I first saw you here. I must have seen it on Alla or FFXIclopedia. --Sage Locano Aredium of Antonia Bayle (talk/ /images) 18:57, 21 April 2007 (CEST) soe and "ingame" art i know we have the for screenshots, but anyone know what SoE's policy is on using other "ingame" images on the wiki? i'm talking about the images used for loading screens, i found 2 really nice ones that have pics of the deitys. i'd like to crop them up and replace the pics for the current worshipable gods, so people can associate better with them (the eq1 pics dont relate much) --fuzzy 05:26, 23 April 2007 (CEST) :IANAL! However, legally, I am sure the EULA forbids us or anyone to use the in-game artwork. However, SOE has traditionally kept a hands-off approach to fansites. Heck, they have even pointed users to fansites with links on many EQ and EQ2 official sites (Community). I am not sure if sites that charge, such as Allakhazam's, have an agreement in place for permission, but I don't think we have anything to worry about. --Florence Sopher of Lucan D'Lere (talk/ /templates) 08:18, 23 April 2007 (CEST) ::mmo companies have pretty much come to the conclusion theres not much they can do about screenshots. hmm, still makes me leary tho. although, i think all they would do is ask to remove those images that went too far. i'll cut up the images and get them ready, and go poking around on the soe forums, see if anyone there might have an answer, i might even get a responce from soe. --fuzzy 08:31, 23 April 2007 (CEST) :::The art that's already there was patently ripped from SOE info on EQ1. I know. I ripped it. :) It's not my fault the links to their source info (giving them credit) keep getting moved around. I suspect they're tickled we're so excited about the game. And we *are* giving them credit. That's an honest effort.--Kodia 14:48, 23 April 2007 (CEST) Category Naming Conventions & More Hullo, should we use plural form for categories names? ('Mount' or 'Mounts', 'Quest' or 'Quests' ...) I'm also a bit at a loss as to what to do exactly with the arena pets. They are house pets, they are items in your inventory (though that is hardly important I would say) and they are Arena champions. The champion info and picture isn't quite the smae thing as the house pet info. I think the best would be to create two templates that crosslink but i'm not sure. Last question, anyone can tell me how to have a page redirect to another short of actualy doing page moves? Phoxtrot :i'm not an admin, but i can answer some of your questions. :@naming, probly gonna get some varying answers, but here's where i fall back to :@pets, talk with User:FlorenceSopher about the pet templates, it'll probly end up getting reworked. it(like alot of things here) need to be updated now that things are actually getting filled in en mass. :@redirects, #REDIRECT send me where , dont forget to put a : at the begining of Category links so its a link, but not an include. (a page move makes one of these automatically) :--uberfuzzy 09:29, 24 April 2007 (CEST) I'm an admin and I can weigh in on this. Ultimately, the truth is this: we may change our minds. Singular or plural? Go with the majority (which I believe is singular) and if we need to move it or create redirects, we can. Therein lies the beauty of the wiki. Nothing is lost or destroyed. As for house pets, I agree with Fuzzy. That's one template that will likely get reworked. I think we have more arena pets than pure house pets (like the plant or the monkey). I don't know that we'll end up creating two templates though. My guess is that we'll have one do dual duty. But that's just a guess. Flo is better at templates than I am. And for redirects, Fuzzy again is right. What he means by the colon and the category though is this: #REDIRECT Category:send me where ''--Kodia 15:17, 24 April 2007 (CEST)'' Bunch of items ready to roll in Hello. I have about 380 carpentry items ready to be created. I took some info on a site and I made a small java program to format and complement it. Here's is an example: Faydark Wooden Stool For subtypes, I have made the following choices: *Sconce, torch, chandelier,... -> "Light Source" *Hearth -> Hearth *Crate, Chest -> Chest *Orb -> Orb *Stool, bench, chair : -> Chair *Vase, urn, pot, eggs, bucket, mirror... : -> Knicknack *Table -> Table *Bed, Mat -> Bed *Tent -> Tent *Scultpure -> Sculpture *Tapestry -> Tapestry *Portrait, Painting :-> Painting *Rug -> Rug *Desk -> Desk *Sales diplays... -> Sales Display *Shelf -> Shelf *Bookshelf, Bookcase -> Bookcase Any suggestion for changes to subtypes or generic descrption before I go forward? I'm not sure about a few of them like which subtype for rujarkian fire and for the hearths. Which subtype for vase, pots, urns... It's easy to change in my java code, more cumbersome if I have to change after inserted in the wiki... --Phoxtrot 26-apr-07 :*i speak not as an admin, but as a 70 carpenter, be carefull using data from another site to do this, soe likes to change the data on furniture alot. :*you dont need to put in blank iname/idesc, just leave them out if your not overriding them :*turn the obtain into : obtain = :*if your not sure about some of the subtypes, leave them blank, as long as its in house items, someone will find it. you can always fall back to the type sorting of everseek.com :*believe it or not, the sales displays are not house items, they are containers. :*oh, and i wouldnt mark all the light type things as 'Light Source' either, not every house 'light' is one, and thats a category (and template) here for equipment that are light sources. category: Light Source : :i've been sooo longing to see all the carpentry stuff get added (and dreading doing it my self), i think the onyl way to do it is like you are doing, en masse automation. :--uberfuzzy 13:14, 26 April 2007 (CEST) :: *Changed "Light Source" to just 'Light' to avoid ambiguity. :: *Created Vase category for vases, pots and Urns. :: * Bureau, Armoire , Dresser, Closet -> Armoire :: * Counter -> Counter :: * Orb, Globe -> Globe :: * Changed the obtain field. ::: IMO, the sales displays are house items. You cannot use them without placing them in house and they can be decorative. ::: --Phoxtrot 26-apr-07 ::::well, actually, you can use them without ever placing them in your house, no different then using a strongbox or even a bag in the broker. plus they get sold out of a Bag Stand not a Furniture Shelf, making them, Containers --uberfuzzy 21:08, 26 April 2007 (CEST) ::::: Well, yes, but if you do not place them, others cannot buy from within your house without paying broker fee. So they are both house items and containers. ::::::Solution, have 'type' field say 'Container' and 'subtype' say 'Placeable' or 'House Item', or 'Sales Display'. Include them in both the Container and House Item categories. --Sage Locano Aredium of Antonia Bayle (talk/ /images) 16:14, 27 April 2007 (CEST) Opinion on Removing Empty Fields When Using Templates I've recently noticed a lot of users deleting fields from templates that seem to be unnecessary. In general, the fields being deleted would, at first blush, appear to be some that aren't necessary and really could be deleted with no short term ill effects. Case in point, a piece of equipment has stated stats and resists in str, agi, and sta. A user might remove the wis and int fields as a matter of clutter, in addition to a variety of other fields. I'm concerned however by this wholesale removal of fields that seem unnecessary and it's happening A LOT. What happens if or when SOE changes their mind and adds stats to an item? When this happens, then we have users coming to look up a piece of equipment, wanting to help, and NOT knowing how to add this information when they go to edit the page because that field has been deleted. I'd like the other admins paying attention (and the users who watch this page) to weigh in on this issue so we can get some consensus on an official statement. My personal opinion is that we state that editors do NOT remove fields from templates, even if they remain unused. But that's my personal opinion. --Kodia 21:29, 1 May 2007 (CEST) :well, since your probly talking at/about me (at mininum, i know i'm a large contributer to this "problem") i'd like to state my reasoning. in the rare chance that soe adds something to thing that doesnt already have it, 2 types of people would be making these edits: wiki people who are familar with the template and know what the fields are (or atleast knowledgeable enough to look at the template help page to find the right field) or random anon passerby's who probly wouldnt know what field to use in the first place. i've 'cleaned' alot of pages that have resists in the protection field. also, some fields react differently when left blank vs not specified (iname and iname2) so sometimes it is better to take them out. --uberfuzzy 21:47, 1 May 2007 (CEST) ::LOL, no acctually I wasn't talking about you on purpose. I just went back through the logs though and saw that you'd done this. Please accept my apologies. It in no way reflects on any person. I'm merely concerned about the practice of it. I think both our arguments are valid. I'm just interested in seeing what other people think.--Kodia 22:04, 1 May 2007 (CEST) :::oh, i know your not talking about me, but like i said, i'm a large part of it. this is mainly an issue from using a subst to make a new page, the EI template has ALOT of stuff that doesnt affect or even is used in many places (like EoF set) but will get left behind because people dont know if they should or shouldnt remove unneeded fields. think things like charms, almost all of the fields are not going to be used (and i need to convince flo to somehow add the casting/recast/duration stuff for them, someday) so its s waste of something --uberfuzzy 22:11, 1 May 2007 (CEST) ::::Now I KNOW you are talking about me! :) Anyway, I have to weigh in on Kodia's side. I think that the template should be left exactly as included unless a note directs the user to remove a section (such as Faction) when not needed. --Florence Sopher of Lucan D'Lere (talk/ /templates) 03:28, 2 May 2007 (CEST) My biggest reason for not removing fields is that people often copy an item's page information rather than using a template directly. They're looking for quick fixes. By removing fields, we remove that ability for them.--Kodia 04:12, 2 May 2007 (CEST) ::While I understand your argument, I believe that there is minimal damage done by removing unused fields. If a piece of equipment were to have a stat added, I still don't think it would be a problem. Even if someone who has never edited here before, it isn't hard to tell that the STR field is added by 'str =+x|'. Likewise, if someone were creating a new article by copying the information from one article as opposed to copying the template directly, with a small bit of studying the template, they'd be able to figure out how it works. --Sage Locano Aredium of Antonia Bayle (talk/ /images) 04:36, 2 May 2007 (CEST) :::We'll have to agree to disagree on the ease of adding a field. Given the number of entries I correct on a regular basis, I'd say it *is* that difficult.--Kodia 04:46, 2 May 2007 (CEST) ok, then what about if say i was crazy and knew the all the fields names and didnt subst or copypasta the template but built in line by line for the data on some newly added item. is not adding them in any different then taking blank ones out? or are we expected to add all blank unused irrelevent fields in? ie, adding the weapon specific dmg/delay in for armor? --uberfuzzy 08:44, 2 May 2007 (CEST) :The number of people who know all the templates exactly line by line is a straw man argument. We encourage people to use templates, period. Either they use them, or they don't. Not half way. If they use them by substitution, then yay us, we've made their life easier. If they use them by copying, then yay us, they've made their life and our lives easier. But in order for that to happen, the templates via substitution OR copying need to be correct. Removing unused lines doesn't help that.--Kodia 22:59, 2 May 2007 (CEST) ::fine, i'll concede that i'm probly the only person that has the template printed out and hanging next to my computer on the wall for field spell checking. i'll also concede that it(having the blank fields stripped) does make it tough to add new (therefor missing) data to already existing pages( hence the reason for me having printed pages). but if you look through at least what i had been doing the last few weeks, cleaning up the effects -> effectlist/desc, i was only mass removing fields on items that were "done", as in the image was there, all the data was known, and baring another mass number nerf from soe, would never change ever again. in any case, I personally have stopped doing it. --uberfuzzy 10:09, 4 May 2007 (CEST)